Classic or Dud: Chuck Klosterman

It's entertaining, yes -- but try and avoid the editions after the first one, when he offers up further thoughts and reflections in a new concluding piece and starts coming across as the guy Blount described spot-on way upthread: "a guy completely unfamiliar with the notion 'history is written by the victors'". I still think his piece on the mourners at the Station fire in Rhode Island trumps all his reflections on a social setting/way of life defined by being working class and loving hard rock.

(Which given that said piece is recent makes it all the more noticeable, because jesus god that booklist and the attitude on it crystallizes the secret elitism-disguised-as-populism crap underpinning a lot of his writing, I realize more now. That's something you'll NEVER get from the other Chuck who writes that we all know here, and thank god for that.)

Yeah, that just leaves a ridiculously bad taste in the mouth -- I don't and never have seen the logical leap from an enjoyable embrace of yourself as a person with happy idiosyncracies -- those elements that make you human in all facets and areas, without apology -- to kowtowing to Rand's humorless and self-righteous vision, all the more amusing precisely because it IS kowtowing, despite all the whining about 'individuality.'

The Franzen reference is worse, though, because I think about how someone coming up to be saying something similarly negative about Loveless would just get a 'hey, that's fine' statement from me. Is my love for that album not justified in his eyes because I don't see fit to go into that ridiculous kind of defense he demands for his love objects? Fuck it.

I loved Rand in high school cuz i was a kinda brainy loner who lacked self-confidence. And then i grew up. And when you grow up you-hopefully-realize that you really don't know that much, that everyone isn't stupid and that the world isn't black/white/good/evil and that humility and humbleness are qualities worth cultivating. Maybe C.K. hasn't grown up yet. He kinda sounds like a big kid who is still a little scared of the world.

I hate to revive this thread just because I finally got around to reading something by Klosterman, but hey..

"Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs" really feels like the thoughts of a guy who's spent a lot of time at the end of a couch watching too much tv, listening to the "cool rock" (and everything else) on the radio, and arguing with his roommate about ridiculous subjects that have no bearing on reality.

With that mindset, you end up ascribing a lot of personal importance to whatever's going on at the time, but you quickly end up realizing that it's going to be replaced by something else in short order. There's not really a strong sense of foundation or history, more about the here and now. Klosterman's sitting downstream from the guys who are idolizing the influential "greats" that stand the test of time, so he only ends up with the end product.

I'd imagine his writing has changed over the last few years, but that's my impression. Even the Rand thing fits in -- huge, romantic notions of greatness, without the thought that someone's probably already done all this and thought it through. It's all about the spectacle and the emotion.

That "low culture" subtitle to his last book bugs me. I thought he was supposed to be against all those divisons like high/low or whatever.

Its ironic, yes?

I enjoyed SD&CCP overall, the Ayn Rand thing makes sense but that's part of his sort of juvenile appeal I suppose. I think ppl in this thread are really making a bigger deal out of him than need be, as if he's TRYING to change the world or something. His self-deprecation is appreciated, he's wrong a lot but whatever. Its an enjoyable read, trashy and entertaining.

His Ayn Rand appreciation just makes as much sense as his David Foster Wallace appreciation. They're both gifted yet flawed writers. I enjoyed "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs" quite a lot.

He managed to articulate my own fascination with "Saved By the Bell" very precisely. However I would say the worst essay in the collection is the piece toward the end about how Vanilla Sky is actually a "good" movie because well... actually it's not and in discussing cinematic discourse on the nature of reality Klosterman gets way off point. He doesn't seem to have a point in the essay other than not exactly sure why everyone hated the movie but him. If anyone else has read it, then they might possibly concur with me that Klosterman's enjoyment of the film is completely predicated on his own stated attraction to actress Penelope Cruz.

yeah but he thinks cruz is so hot that he can see why cruise chooses her over cameron diaz in the film's love triangle storyline.

Myself, I'd go for Diaz since she's livelier and exhibits far more 3 dimensional sexiness in personality than Cruz does in her wooden performance. Though, in her defense, Cruz doesn't really speak english and her getting cast in Hollywood films has more to do with the spread in maxim than because of her good performances in spanish-language films. Regardless of the geeky debate I'd like to have with Klosterman on the subject of diaz vs. cruz and their respective on screen hotness...it's a shitty movie.

I picked up that Cocoa Puffs book in a bookstore the other month and flipped it open randomly to see how long it would take to annoy me. Three sentences. Flipped randomly to another page. Three sentences. I put the book down.

I haven't read "Fargo Rock City," which is what made his name, but I can appreciate that he gave voice to some kind of Midwestern its-only-rocknroll-buddilikeit populism. Fine. But the things of his I have read, magazine pieces here and there, just aren't interesting. That's his biggest problem. He introduces no new ideas, he traffics in watery received wisdom, and there's a prickly defensiveness underneath the golly-gee regular guyisms that makes him less likable than he thinks he is. I guess he shouldn't annoy me so much -- who really cares, right? More power to him for making a living at it.

Except that I can't help seeing some connection between his bogus, resentful anti-"elitism" and the bogus, resentful anti-"elitism" peddled by the Bush administration. Both seem calculated to appeal to people who want to be assured that it's OK not to know very much about anything, and to cast aspersions on knowledge itself. Which is maybe a heavy seabird to hang around the neck of Chuck fucking Klosterman, who's probably a Kerry Democrat for all I know and is certainly whole solar systems of magnitudes of malignance removed from Dick Cheney. But still, he annoys me.

I don't think Klosterman proposes that it's alright to "not know much about anything." His essay on Pamela Anderson's appeal, I think, would make someone who's attracted to her consider why that is and what she represents. It's definitely watered down cultural media theory but also made more accessible. At its best the essays ask you to consider why pop culture affects you in the way it does, as opposed to blindly accepting that things are entertaining. The content makers of low culture would likely be unhappy with observations he makes about their programs.Klosterman is self depricating whereas Bush-Cheney et al defensively oppose the questioning of their authority in any form, which is what makes them dangerous. The NY Press review mentioned up thread made somewhat hysterical connections between Klosterman and American conservatism. Although because of the uncomofrtable self revelations and strong sense of personality that come across in some of Klosterman's writings, I can understand why people could be turned off by him. That's a chance he takes, I think, in order to achieve notariety and become a celebrity journalist.

Except that I can't help seeing some connection between his bogus, resentful anti-"elitism" and the bogus, resentful anti-"elitism" peddled by the Bush administration. Both seem calculated to appeal to people who want to be assured that it's OK not to know very much about anything, and to cast aspersions on knowledge itself. - otmfm

I saw Klosterman on the EMP panel down at the New School a few months back, and he was surprisingly unstupid. I mean, he was less articulate than any of the other panelists, but he wasn't, like, a statistical outlier or anything. As for his writing, which I've only read in periodical form, I find it sporadically competent.

Kloserman's primary calling card is that he has a fairly distinct writing voice, and that his choice of topics is often clever. That his content is fairly vacuous doesn't seem to bother quite a few esteemed editors.

I bought Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs the other day but I lost it in my car, and am deciding if I should read it.

I bought it after reading an excerpt on The Real World that I loved, but in this thread a lot of people who's opinions I trust are really going to town with the Klosterman hate and I'm wondering if I shouldn't even waste my time with it.

Though this line of thinking:

I suppose my problem is that not only can't I understand why anyone would waste their time watching Saved by the Bell, I feel a degree of contempt for the way it seems Klosterman is determined to make this into a badge of honor. Probably also I do this sort of thing myself, and it seem there's a pretty strong element of defensiveness in his stance; criticism is instantaneously diverted because he already KNOWS it's "low culture."

my 15 year old nephew, a recent convert to ROCK, was reading CK's latest tome at the beach last week. didn't have the heart to rip the book from his hands and set him on a higher path to knowledge. kids have to make their own mistakes, etc. but oh boy I was bummed out.

I like him, in that I think he's funny and clever, and that's good enough for me. The smugness doesn't bother me, nor the fact that he doesn't address legitimate aesthetic issues in his reviews, nor that his ego may be out of control, nor that he gets paid too much for what he does. Not even that he kind of likes alot of bad music. He's a skillful humorist, and a semi-insightful thinker. He's no Derogatis, that's for sure. But if hes still going on the frequent solo drinking binges he mentions so casually in Fargo Rock City, he may end up as over-rated as Lester Bangs.Though would it be rockist of me to say he was better before he got popular?

"and i think that's 1/2 his appeal is to say up front- i'm not very good at this"

yikes! you really think so? or that he thinks this? i never got that from him. i only read his esquire column (or is it gq?), but i never got that vibe. he knows how to write for one thing. he has journalistic skills up the wazoo. i actually liked his val kilmer piece in the last gq (or was it esquire?) i could never write that kinda thing in a million years.